Have common issues been found to be behind why topics are crashing RW?

[rob]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Galen

Interesting that most would define a major update as items that were actually on the update/release list.... I sure don't recall switching from RTF to HTML exclusively being on the poll (which we can't even visit the original line of questions so maybe my memory is off). I guess that is just another of the growing list of things "we" (incert LWD here) decided was what we wanted.

Conversion to HTML seems contrary to the kickstarter as well (see question #43 Here The most interesting part being>
Now to me "replicating" doesn't equal replace. BUT total conversion of EVERYONE's realms without "we" being conveyed as to why seems like the first step to "leaving behind" xxx.doc & xxx.RTF formatting to move to a solely online use. I understand the appeal and versatility that HTML brings, but since the majority still utilize word processing programs, PDF's, etc, the only conclusion I can "Assume" is this move is to support Marketplace?

Don't get me wrong, while improved features for linking, assigning tags, assigning 3rd party software links, etc are all fine and good, I guess I just don't see where that gets us to completing "major" elements that are on this presumed list starting with the Content Market? LWD consistent defense is we don't have the manpower resources to do everything at once.. sure I get that too, small company = priorities but it certainly doesn't appear like those priorities are being worked.

And here we are a year (for some of us more) later and we are minimally further along on seeing the completion of said polling priorities except to hear "soon".

The Kickstarter (which encouraged many to make this purchase including myself) repeatedly states we are " in the homestretch" of refinements and improvements, when in reality it is over the distant horizon somewhere to arrive "Soon"

I see it's time for the next round of armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing everything we do without first seeking answers. We've asked you multiple times in the past to please ask questions instead of your consistent approach, but it seems those requests have fallen on deaf ears. I can assure you that your tactic of "casting aspersions with disclaimers that make it all better in your mind" - but clearly don't in reality - isn't winning you any influence over the path we're taking. So I hope this is cathartic for you, because it's otherwise not constructive in any way whatsoever.

We stated quite prominently in recent announcements that these changes were a necessary milestone on the path to the Content Market and web-based access. Since it appears those statements weren't prominent enough, I'll restate it here for you.

The conversion to HTML was REQUIRED in order for us to do anything for the web. Fundamental changes like this HAD to be in place before we introduced the Content Market. If we didn't do them now, we would have increased the complexity and resulting problems due to the conversion by an order of magnitude by waiting till after the Content Market. Since web-based support is only a few months down the road at this point, waiting would have been stupid on our part.

As for why we introduced all the changes to make linking smarter and better, the answer should be obvious. We're leveraging all those improvements for the material that we're putting together and that we'll be releasing through the Content Market. Anyone else who wants to put together material for sale through the Content Market can take advantage of these same features. We've added features to the product that we're leveraging internally AND that make the lives of all users significantly better - both with their own material and when using material purchased through the Content Market. Big wins all around. If we don't do that now, we won't be able to retroactively go back and add that to material released through the Content Market, so that first material would be forever hamstrung, which again would be stupid on our part.

So, while you may have preferred we prioritize things differently, we're proceeding with the best interests of the company AND USERS squarely in mind. It seems that the vast majority of users understand this. I sincerely wish that you'd pause and consider what they must be seeing that you apparently aren't.

[rob]

Originally Posted by AEIOU

201 worked and made me happy, 202 blew me up, 205 put me back together. I'm gun shy now and making backups periodically as I edit for now. The switch to HTML may continue having tremors for months to come.

We're down to only a handful of true problems with the HTML and linking at this point. And we're working our tails off to get them all sorted out as quickly as possible. After the next bug fix release, any "tremors" will likely be special cases with certain combinations of formatting that nobody else has encountered. There are so many combinations of weird things that users have done that we never thought to test. These combinations can only be sussed out by actually releasing the changes to a large number of users. At this point, we're absolutely through the worst of it, and even the remaining issues are only going to arise rarely.

Originally Posted by AEIOU

@DLG: How can a web client for viewing and editing be implemented without all the display text being html compliant? I guess RW could display everything as straight text but that would strip all formatting. The 201 update was probably the most important update since release as it lays the foundation for everything in the future.

Thank you for stating this so succinctly.

Originally Posted by AEIOU

HTML is a markup language in many ways doing exactly what WordPerfect and other early word processors did. It just marks things to start bold, text text text, end bold, and voila you have formatted text. From there, it's not too big a step to move to printing and then eventually export. Once RW data starts getting posted to the web, printing is essentially enabled (because you can capture a web page to a PDF) however formatting of printed content will probably need tweaking to really make us happy. But all that has been promised is basic printing and I think LWD is well on the way to fulfilling that.

Funny you should suggest this approach...

Originally Posted by AEIOU

Hang in there. I'm betting Rob has a present for us for Christmas.

Get out of my damn head!!!

That was the goal. However, given the volume of issues we've had with the big release last month, that's looking less likely at this point. But it's still the target. We'll have more info to share after we get more clarity in the upcoming weeks.

[rob]

Originally Posted by MNBlockHead

For me, I had no issues at also with the prior updates. I lost track of the updates and what I did at which step, but I do know that the most recent topic that crashes RW was created after all updates had been applied. Unfortunately, I lost a lot of original text with that one.

Please confirm this, but nothing should have been lost. The topic may have become inaccessible until we got the bug fixed, but I believe that nobody lost any of their content due to the issues we had with HTML, formatting, and links. You may end up losing a couple links, but those can be readily re-created - probably automatically.

[rob]

Originally Posted by Viking2054

I thought the conversion to HTML was because of the web based interface and not necessarily the content market. Just my opinion.

Doing it before the Content Market vastly reduced the complexity and potential issues with the conversion. Given the number of issues we've encountered by doing it now, I'm very thankful that we bit the bullet and did it now. It probably would have been crippling it we had waited.

[MaxSupernova]

The conversion to HTML was REQUIRED in order for us to do anything for the web. Fundamental changes like this HAD to be in place before we introduced the Content Market. If we didn't do them now, we would have increased the complexity and resulting problems due to the conversion by an order of magnitude by waiting till after the Content Market. Since web-based support is only a few months down the road at this point, waiting would have been stupid on our part.

But haven't you had the big plan for this all along? Why do it one way and then have to convert? It makes it seem like you changed boats mid-stream. And I'd hope that you would have said something about that if it was the case. A nice post about how the content format was changing to facilitate required change in program architecture, sorry for the inconvenience, we mis-planned, but things are better now, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

I do assume that you actually have an architectural plan for this software that will not require complete reworks for each step. So why not let us know it was coming? A nice post about how the next step in the master plan was to convert the content format, why it wasn't done that way in the first place, sorry for the inconvenience, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

If it was a big change because you are planning on the fly, it would have been appropriate to tell us. If you had it in the plan all along, it would have been appropriate to tell us. Either way, we were once again in the complete darkness on critical issues and left to make our own assumptions and deal with the mess afterwards.

If that frustrates you, the only person who can set up the conditions where it doesn't happen is you.

Call it "armchair quarterbacking" if you want, I'll continue to call it "making whatever deductions that we can from a remarkable lack of information on matters that affect us".

[Farling]

I don't see any reason to be told ahead of time that the internal structure is changing. The release notes for the recent update in which the change was made was sufficient for my purposes.

As with any living software product things change. Some software needs to be refactored in order to work better with future enhancements. This is the reality of any product development.

I'd call it armchair quarterbacking from people who have gripes about the development team not prioritising functionality according to their personal wishes.

[rob]

Originally Posted by MaxSupernova

But haven't you had the big plan for this all along? Why do it one way and then have to convert? It makes it seem like you changed boats mid-stream. And I'd hope that you would have said something about that if it was the case. A nice post about how the content format was changing to facilitate required change in program architecture, sorry for the inconvenience, we mis-planned, but things are better now, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

I do assume that you actually have an architectural plan for this software that will not require complete reworks for each step. So why not let us know it was coming? A nice post about how the next step in the master plan was to convert the content format, why it wasn't done that way in the first place, sorry for the inconvenience, here's what to expect and some basic timelines. Easy-peasy, everyone's happy.

If it was a big change because you are planning on the fly, it would have been appropriate to tell us. If you had it in the plan all along, it would have been appropriate to tell us. Either way, we were once again in the complete darkness on critical issues and left to make our own assumptions and deal with the mess afterwards.

If that frustrates you, the only person who can set up the conditions where it doesn't happen is you.

Call it "armchair quarterbacking" if you want, I'll continue to call it "making whatever deductions that we can from a remarkable lack of information on matters that affect us".

The switch to HTML was planned from the beginning. It was simply a question of when we had to do it, and that "when" was always going to be tied to web-based access. As for why we didn't do it from the start, the technology of the web was vastly different back when we started, and the technological future of the web was still stabilizing and not yet fully adopted (read: HTML5 and CSS3). So the tools back then were vastly worse than they are today, which would have made it significantly more difficult and precluded us from implementing some of the features we have in place.

I work 80-100 hours every week. The best analogy is that I'm at the vortex of a tornado as I'm trying to juggle a hundred different tasks at once that all have to come together smoothly for Realm Works (and the rest of the company's business). I'm also the technical architect of this beast and have extensive development responsibilities, including coordinating all the diverse technical aspects with the team. So my focus is not on whether we've proactively communicated why we're doing things the way that we are. Given that few companies in existence actually do that, I also don't see how that should be expected from us.

That being said, we are VERY open when asked questions - vastly moreso than virtually any other company I've encountered - and we've demonstrated that time after time. That's what I keep trying to tell the handful of users here on the forums that get all snippy because we didn't stop to explain everything to them in advance - or, in some cases, stop to ask their permission before we do what's best for users and the company as a whole. JUST ASK THE QUESTION. Don't leap in with assumptions and conspiracy theories. I'll say it again. Just ask the darn question. We'll get it answered.

Let's look at the posts up-thread. It would have been vastly simpler to have simply asked the questions. No aspersions necessary. No assumptions of the worst required. The answers would have contained the same information, either way.

Now let's look at your post that I'm replying to. You start with honest and valid questions that seek to understand what isn't clear to you. I don't have a problem with that at all, and I'm happy to answer those questions. I don't think the expectation that we should have explained everything to everyone in advance is necessarily reasonable, but that's merely a difference of opinion that can be discussed here - without all the wild assumptions and negativism of the poster up-thread. If the earlier poster had adopted your tone and approach, the answers would have been the same, the information would have been shared, and there would have been no alarmist sideshow. Everybody wins.

That's what I keep asking everyone for. Polite, respectful discourse as adults. Things we think are self-evident may not be. We may not realize something is confusing or misleading. Heck, we may have said at one point that we should explain something to users when a release goes out and then we forget to do it later. That's definitely happened before. So ask the questions and give us a chance to answer them. Is that honestly an unreasonable expectation on our part (as a few folks seem to believe)?

[MNBlockHead]

Originally Posted by rob

Please confirm this, but nothing should have been lost. The topic may have become inaccessible until we got the bug fixed, but I believe that nobody lost any of their content due to the issues we had with HTML, formatting, and links. You may end up losing a couple links, but those can be readily re-created - probably automatically.

The bug didn't delete any content that that was already in a saved topic. What happened is that I spent a lot of time working on a topic without saving, which is a bad practice, I know. Word Processing autosaves have gotten so good that I've become lax in saving as frequently as I should.

The most recent update seems to have fixed the issues I was having. I can not access the topic that was crashing RW on viewing it and and those that I could view but would crash on save if I tried to edit them are not fine as well.

[rob]

Originally Posted by MNBlockHead

The most recent update seems to have fixed the issues I was having. I can not access the topic that was crashing RW on viewing it and and those that I could view but would crash on save if I tried to edit them are not fine as well.

I hope those were typos above where you said "not". I hope you meant "now", based on the first sentence.

[MNBlockHead]

Originally Posted by rob

I hope those were typos above where you said "not". I hope you meant "now", based on the first sentence.

Yes typo. Sorry. I am now able to view and edit the topics that were giving me issue before.